LETTERS TO THE LIVING SECTION

Published 4:00 am, Sunday, July 11, 2004

Women are more than bodies

Editor -- Susan Jackson (Letters, July 4) argues that men are to blame for the fad of cosmetic breast surgery among young women. Using Jackson's logic, I guess we women should wait until men (as a collective) change their supposed desire for large breasts -- until then we're supposed to get fake breasts to please them while whining about being persecuted. Is there something illogical, even downright stupid, here?

Women who have dignity draw a line in the sand, whereas women who relentlessly cater to men end up as victims; bound feet, female genital mutilation, whalebone corsets -- fake breasts are no disruption in the long tradition of misogynist sadomasochism. Oddly enough, the greatest and most powerful women in history have not always been great beauties, but women who had faith that they amounted to more than their bodies. In this commercialized world, with the cosmetic surgery industry hungry for money to be made from our lack of confidence, magnified by the media (another truth-twisting entity), it is difficult to reach enlightenment, the place where your body is not your destiny.

One of the most stunning women in history, stage actress Sarah Bernhardt, was thin as a rail with a boyish figure. But she held audiences spellbound and had numerous men pursuing her -- even with her flat chest. She had "character," a word which has been forgotten, but it's still in the dictionary. Look it up.

LATEST SFGATE VIDEOS

DIANA COOPER

Tiburon

Editor -- I agree with most of your remarks about teenage breast implants ("You can't wear your self-esteem on your chest," June 27), but Jane Ganahl's statement about tattoos, that there is "no real risk involved other than future embarrassment over a rash act," is misleading. There are very real risks of infections and infectious diseases such as hepatitis B and C transmitted through improperly cleaned needles and contaminated ink.

ROBERT CARDELLI

Palo Alto

A matter of propriety in naming men's toilet

Editor -- A slight correction to Catherine Bigelow's Swells column of July 4. The naming of the Berkeley Rep's Roda Theatre men's room was not a matter of competitive philanthropy or economics, but rather a lingering struggle between artistic license and conventional propriety. The dilemma around naming the new Berkeley Rep's Gentleman's Lounge was whether it should be the more savory "The Gentlemen's Falik Lounge" or the less subtle -- "The Gentle Falik Lounge"; or the more tasteful "The Falik Gentlemen's Lounge." Alas, even in Berkeley, propriety prevailed in the final choice -- "The Falik Gentlemen's Lounge."

BILL FALIK

Editor -- Joshunda Sanders ("Stirring it up," July 4) should have transcended black sisterhood chauvinism and predictable public relations for Donna Brazile and found time and space to confront her with several essential questions of the Al Gore "failure to communicate" 2000 presidential race, the incomparably abysmal yet eminently winnable campaign Brazile transformed into the spectacle of defeat.

First, who was the political genius who decided to reject President Bill Clinton's -- who left office with over 60 percent approval -- repeated offers of campaign support? Clinton would have been indispensable in winning Florida, New Hampshire, West Virginia, Arkansas and Ohio, any one of which would have won the presidency for Gore.

Second, Joseph Lieberman was chosen as Clinton's severest Senate critic, intended to ensure Florida's Jewish voters. But Sen. Bob Graham had won that same vote in five Florida races. Refusing Clinton's support reduced the Democratic electoral base -- especially with blacks -- and alienated Republican moderates. Moreover, like a robotic prisoner of war, Lieberman was forced to rescind his independent positions opposing "affirmative action," proposing school choice and anti-pornography standards

Third, was Brazile responsible for abandoning a major effort in Ohio, which Gore lost by only a few points? How could any Democrat lose West Virginia which even the dreadful Michael Dukakis won?

Fourth, Gore moved his headquarters to Nashville yet could not come even close to winning his home state of Tennessee.

Fifth, Lieberman began a late but little litany in the final week, stating that Bush was "not ready" to be president. Where was this campaign theme throughout the post-Labor Day period?

Sixth, did Brazile counsel Gore to be insufferably aggressive in the first debate, neutered and nothing in the second and pompous and humorless in the third?

With a false reputation for debating skill, Gore began with a distinct advantage over the verbally pathetic Bush and proceeded to squander it deliberately. (No challenge to Bush's "fuzzy math" mantra was the most egregious Gore folly. Synonym for "fuzzy math": Bush's tax cut mania that has transmuted an unprecedented Clinton-Robert Rubin surplus into an inexcusable national deficit.)

Seventh, why was Bob Graham -- the only individual who could have guaranteed Florida for Gore -- denied the opportunity?

Eighth, African American Donna Brazile could not activate the vital black vote where it was needed, in Florida and Ohio.

Ninth, no attempt was made to mitigate the damage done by Ralph Nader, who won 97,000 votes in Florida alone, giving the state to Bush. Gore did not confront the Nader challenge, did not try to attract alienated Nader voters to the Democratic ticket, did not present his record to rebut Nader's constant assaults.

Tenth, Gore entered the race with the longest federal service -- in the House, Senate and vice presidency -- comparable to Lyndon Johnson. Yet this extraordinary 24 years was not emphasized, probably for fear of arousing the reflexive, reactionary anti-Washington zealots. This federal experience would have been deeply desired in the wanton wake of the Sept. 11 mass "Murder Most Foul."

Editor -- I am writing about the article about fatness ("Leave fat enough alone," July 4) and the examples used to frame the story. It seems to me that Annie Nakao spent a considerable amount of space on the Bill and Monica story, with Whitewater and Susan McDougal thrown in as well. What was her point? It seemed to me an opportunity to bring up the gossipy stuff again. I am really tired of having Bill Clinton's presidency reduced to these kind of stories by the news media. There were millions of people who got ahead and lived better lives because he was president. I always felt that he was intelligent enough to make wise decisions and not to drag our country into the depths like the current president.